A Hunter’s Opinion on Gun Control

I grew up in a small northern Michigan town where people shoot cans for sport. At school, it was normal for the hallways and classrooms to be empty on Nov. 15, because the opening day of deer season was practically a holiday. It isn’t uncommon for kids in my hometown to have shot a gun before the age of 10. I used to love shooting pistols at tree stumps for target practice. It is normal to see unloaded guns laying around my house. My dad, an avid hunter, raised me in a way that made me think that the right to bear arms is one of the greatest rights we have.

Hunting with my dad is one of my favorite things to do. And I’d give it up in a heartbeat. Being at college has given me an opportunity to form my own opinions and beliefs about certain issues. Every morning before class, I turn on CNN as I get ready for the day. It feels like every day there is a different horror story where someone is shot down like a dog in the street.

I watched the morning news the day reporter Alison Parker and Adam Ward were killed on camera on Aug. 26. Last week, a student at the University of Memphis was shot to death in the school’s student union building. The next day, a Texas sheriff deputy was shot in cold blood. That weekend a suspected unarmed man was shot by an officer in Texas.

Not everyone who owns a gun is an expert on using one. Almost every morning I see gun violence on the news. It makes me sad and embarrassed that our country hasn’t figured out an effective gun control method. The NRA claims that gun control shouldn’t be associated with any emotional outbreak. Why not? You mean to tell me that I just watched a reporter die on national news and that emotional rage shouldn’t affect my opinion on gun control? That actually sickens me.

According to a Gun Control Legislation specialist in domestic security and crime policy, as of 2012, the U.S. has so many guns that there’s nearly one firearm for every person who lives in the country. Privately held arsenal is growing at an extremely fast pace. There are 8 million firearms manufactured globally each year, and 4.5 million firearms are bought by people living in the U.S. Don’t be mistaken, this doesn’t mean that everyone is packing heat. In truth, the majority of our population is still unarmed. 43% of Americans have guns in their homes. As stated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. has over 11,000 homicides due to firearms each year. This amounts to about 70 percent of all homicides. Whether that rate seems high to you or not depends on your perspective. The U.S. isn’t the country with the most gun murders– that would be Honduras. However, there isn’t another country in the world with as many guns as the U.S.

If you look outside of the U.S. to countries that have relatively high gun-ownership rates, you’ll notice that their gun control laws are stricter. Finland has 69 guns per 100 people, but only 14 gun homicides per year. In most European nations with high levels of gun-owners, they use guns solely for hunting rather than protection. Self-defense is not a valid reason to obtain a license.

What about protection though? People opposed to gun control often argue that they need firepower to protect themselves. Don’t we have the right to protect our families? Can’t guns do that for us? Yes, if that’s your preferred decision. But, how effective is this decision if it’s just based out of reaction instead of detailed and rational consideration? The Committee on Law and Justice says that 43 percent of the 6 million people in the U.S. have firearms in their homes. This means that about 2.5 million people can claim they need guns for self-defense. But if that’s what they decide to claim, then they are rationalizing to an extent that they need guns for self-defense 100 percent of the time, and that idea is quite unnerving. When the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that people with guns are 4.5 more likely to be shot in an assault than those who were unarmed, it really makes you think how much you know is based out of belief rather than statistics.

Alison Parker’s dad, Andy Parker, has taken it in his own hands to step up and be a speaker for gun control. Parker spoke to CNN saying that he doesn’t think the government should take people’s guns away, but make the means of possessing a gun much harder. We live in a place where gun violence commonly happens in schools, malls, movies, and public places everywhere. People never know what danger or threat they’re putting themselves into. For crying out loud, these murders are taking place in public places with women, children, families, people of all types and then a sick-minded person with a short temper does something horrible and we’re not stopping this?

I don’t know what the answer is to stop this insanity. I believe that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But, if politicians can’t step up and do anything about it, then why aren’t we? I’m not saying we should get rid of all 5 million guns in the U.S., but I am saying let’s make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to get ahold of one. I still would give up all of my rights to a gun if it had to be done. I would give up every day hunting with my dad, every excited moment when I hit my target, every happy memory I have associated with guns if it saved one person’s life. It wouldn’t be easy for me or for millions of people to give this up. But I think one person’s life is worth the sacrifice of every gun on this planet. I would give up one of my most treasured hobbies if it made our society more safe. Because my hobbies aren’t worth the risk of someone’s life.

Rebecca Barry is a sophomore studying business and communications. Along with writing for the Pleiad she is the campus chair of Global Brigades, coordinator of the Distinguished Scholar Program, an Academic Success Coach, a member of Delta Gamma Fraternity, Gerstacker and Honors. She looks forward to doing nonprofit work when she graduates in 2018. In the mean time, it's safe to say she bleeds purple and gold!

Gun control does not work, never has worked and never will work, this has been proven in every single juristiction both at home and abroad that has implemented gun control. Giving up our guns isn’t going to make anybody safer, this has been proven repeatedly.

Granted, you should give up your guns anyway, you’re clearly not mentally fit to own them by your own standards.

“The NRA claims that gun control shouldn’t be affiliated by any emotional outbreak. Why not? You mean to tell me that I just watched a reporter die on national news and that emotional rage shouldn’t affect my opinion on gun control? That actually sickens me.”

“Don’t we have the right to protect our families? Can’t guns do that for us? Yes, if that’s your preferred decision. But, how effective is this decision if it’s just based out of reaction instead of detailed and rational consideration? ”

So it’s OK to let emotion drive your desire to control/limit the rights of others but one must use “detailed and rational consideration” when deciding on how and whether they should exercise their right to defend themselves. Wow.

When I look at your “studies” under “detailed and rational consideration”, I see how they came to a predetermined conclusion by carefully piking their control groups and dismissing the vast majority of defensive gun uses.

“When the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine studied that people with guns are 4.5 more likely to be shot in an assault than those who were unarmed, it really makes you think how much you know based out of belief rather than statistics.”

For one, they use data from those that are shot and/or assaulted as their baseline control group. Then they determine how many were “with” a gun (not necessarily legally). In doing so, this captures large amounts of criminal activity (like gang shootings/assaults). Secondly, they assume causal relationships (being “with” gun increases change of getting shot) when it’s just as likely that reverse causal relationships are there (people under greatest risk of being shot/assaulted choose to be “with” gun for a fighting chance to defend themselves). Thirdly, these statistics also ignore the vast majority of defensive gun uses that don’t even involve a shot being fired (or involved no one actually being hit) that scare off perpetrators. These “statistics” are bunk for the vast majority of LEGAL gun owners that are “with” a gun. If one is not involved in criminal activity, one’s likelihood of being part of this studies “statistics” is far lower.

“The NRA claims that gun control shouldn’t be affiliated by any emotional outbreak. Why not? You mean to tell me that I just watched a reporter die on national news and that emotional rage shouldn’t affect my opinion on gun control? That actually sickens me.”

“Don’t we have the right to protect our families? Can’t guns do that for us? Yes, if that’s your preferred decision. But, how effective is this decision if it’s just based out of reaction instead of detailed and rational consideration? ”

So it’s OK to let emotion drive your desire to control/limit the rights of others but one must use “detailed and rational consideration” when deciding on how and whether they should defend themselves. Wow.

But, if you’re all talk and no action like you sound, you probably won’t. Just don’t come crying to me when they start coming for your sniper, er, I mean hunting rifles. It’ll serve you right for being a sellout and not standing with the rest of us defending all facets of responsible, legal gun ownership, and not just the ones you personally approve of.

But, in the interim, is there a feminine version of the name Elmer (Fudd)? Elmira perhaps?

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

Yeah, well that’s nice but the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting ducks. More people are killed by medical doctors than by firearms. As for the number of homicides when a firearm is used the vast majority are criminal killing criminal – this begs the question “where’s the problem”. As for anti-gun media statistics they are generally very suspect due to cherry-picking data to arrive at a predetermined conclusion (i.e. “self fulfilling prophecy”). We actually have a declining homicide rate in states where there are few gun laws as opposed to “blue” cities and states which interestingly enough have the highest murder rates. The debate will go on and on as anti-gun shills like Mikey Bloomberg and others wish to restrict freedom and liberty while they have entourages of armed body guards. And so it goes …

You lefties will go to any length to spread your b.s. UNREAL. You were not a hunter that you claim. Like i told my wife how do you people live with your self when all you do is lie and spread more b.s. then anyone person should.You live in your own little world of lies. You commies dont like our constitution our laws i have one thing to say to you and the rest of you get the f;%”k out of our country and stay the hell out. Enough said.

Whether one who uses a gun for protection is thereby safer is irrelevant. The purpose is not to make us safer — the purpose is to make robbers, home invaders and rapists _less_ safe. The goal is not to be as safe as possible during an encounter with a criminal, but rather to minimize such occurrences.

Ms. Barry,
I read your opinion with great interest because it mirrored many of my own thoughts on this subject. Yet I was saddened you would surrender something you love because others abuse it. And then I read the comments section, with amusement. Normally I wouldn’t pen an online response (at age 52, this is my first ever). But the comments were too vitriolic to ignore. Here goes… .

Like you, I am a former Pleiad editor; I am also an NRA member, and a rifle and shotgun instructor. I grew up in a home that sounds exactly like yours. My best memories of my father were made while hunting ducks on Saginaw Bay, shooting clays over fallow fields in the Thumb, and plinking cans or tethered balloons at a gravel pit in Davison. Marksmanship and learning how to use and care for a firearm was vital to developing my confidence and taught me responsibility with the expectation of perfection.

Like you, I become heartsick when I learn of one child shooting another while playing with a found gun; I feel true hatred when innocent lives are lost to a madman seeking attention, revenge or martyrdom. While I may not agree with your conclusion, it’s not because I believe your opinion wrong, just wishful and unrealistic. It would indeed be a better world if there were no innocent victims of violence. But just as a bell cannot be un-rung, gunpowder can’t be un-invented. And liberty, once won, should not be surrendered by those lucky enough to be born into it. Surrendering your guns, or advocating the government take mine, will not save one life. We’re the good guys who know how and when to use them responsibly. Instead, we are also the ones who should be leading the discussion with the goal of a better-educated neighbor or initiating public policy to resolve the imperfection liberty and gun ownership create.

The catalyst for our disagreement begins with the criminal, the mentally ill, the ignorant and the careless. They are the ones who need to be locked away, treated, educated or trained. Gun bans and prohibition will only lead to black markets, underground economies, and create additional problems without solving the original ones.

When someone says, “If we ban guns, we won’t have gun violence,” I hear myself saying, (in my best Charlton Heston) “from my cold, dead hands.” But this, too, is just rhetoric full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I am thrilled the NRA holds the line for the rights of gun owners. I am equally angered with its leadership for perfecting its rule through fear. Its policy is to divide gun owners from non-owners while quashing reasonable discussion or debate. To be sure, it’s a profitable business model. But it doesn’t advance the cause or help prevent an accidental death. It only creates and guarantees an equally irrational opposition. Instead, I propose the NRA and its true believers return to its original mission – as educators and marksmanship trainers – and then expand that mission by lobbying government as de-facto experts on universal training, reasonable background checks, and periodic competency exams. If we spend our collective money and energy on finding solutions, we’d have a more informed, trained, and ultimately civil society.

Until then, we find ourselves “enlightened” by guys like Chris, Blade and Earl in the Comments section who hurl hate because they haven’t learned a mature way to express their opinions. There are grains of truth in their theses, but their conclusions remain childish, diminishing their points of view. Yes, one can find statistics to support any conclusion. Yes, there are homogenous societies in Scandanavia with low gun-related crime because they also have mandatory military conscription, and every homeowner is trained and has a firearm for defense of home and country following World War II. (If only this had been instituted throughout Europe, the six million who died in the Holocaust might have joined the Allies and been able to shoot back!) Yes, we need to question the sources of our information and weigh the agendas behind them. But to call you a “lefty” and say “get the [expletive deleted] out of our country” demonstrates the hateful ignorance of those who aren’t yet capable of original thought, simple puppets of PR masters ruling through fear and hate.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution comes before the Second. It gives journalists, like you, a protected voice. It also gives opinion-writers one, even if they haven’t learned to use it well. (Thankfully, an opinion may be loaded, but it isn’t a gun.) Best of all, our right to write makes the rest of our constitutional freedoms relevant.

We are all better for your efforts, Rebecca. Please go shooting with your dad the next time you’re home. Continue thinking. Keep convincing others to advance productive ideas. And please keep writing.